I just finished a "historical novel" about the Viet Nam War. One theme that was very well developed was how the troops were often able to get the job done, despite "The System". As the author, a retired USAF Lt Col so aptly noted, Mr MacNamara's Ford Motor Company mathematical models often didn't provide the logistical and maintenance needs of the units on the battlefield. Thus, "GI ingenuity" was often required to get the job done.
I identified with what the author was saying, as in Viet Nam, as well in later years, I found that one often had to devise "legitimate" (or seemingly so) ways to get the job done in spite of "The System".
One example was the Army's allocation of maintenance to Unit, Direct Support, General Support and Depot levels. Our Chinook unit was authorized to do Unit and Limited Direct Support Maintenance. The Direct Support Maintenance unit that was tasked to provide support beyond our needs was at the other end of the airfield and supported a variety of units on our base and four others. Their workload was significant. While a unit could somewhat manage the flying hours it placed on its aircraft to stagger out the timing of scheduled maintenance tasks and accomplish a modicum of maintenance control, the Direct Support Unit had no control over the scheduling of hours by the supported units. Thus if a unit mismanaged their flying hour distribution, they would turn the aircraft in to DS for them to handle major inspections and component changes - often several at a time.
Our unit did an amazing job of scheduling, and thus, we never turned aircraft in to DS. In fact, we had production control so fine tuned, we had the manpower to exceed our "Limited DS" authorization. However, we also knew that exceeding our Limited DS "off the books" would deny the Army the data to properly know the man hours and parts required to maintain the total fleet, yet we couldn't record doing maintenance we weren't authorized to do, and the DS unit didn't need the additional work.
So, since our Maint Officer and the DS unit CO were flight school buddies, they worked out a deal. We kept him appraised of the "extra" DS work we did, and dutifully filled our DA Form 2407s (Maintenance Work Request) for that work, showing his unit as having done the work. Thus, manhours and parts were dutifully reported to Aviation Systems Command, allowing them to keep the support requirements for Chinooks accurate and up to date. We did "above level" component repair this way as well. We kept our fleet flying without the uncertainty of when DS could do a job and get the ship or component back to us, the DS unit had a somewhat more manageable burden, and the database was accurate, except for the level at which the work was really done. However, that "inaccuracy" was of minor consequence, as it simply showed a higher demand for DS manhours, which would ultimately increase DS TOE staffing, if possible.
Fast forward nearly 20 years, and I am now an airfield commander at a post with civil service facility engineer support. The airfield lighting system would occasionally need bulbs replaced. Rather than bother the Facility Engineers for the on-call night electrician to drive 3 miles out to the airfield to do the work, I had soldiers qualified and willing to do it. Made much more sense. But then, the post came under review for contracting out facility engineer support, and in order to develop the statements of work to be placed in the request for bids, ALL facilities engineering work for a year had to be documented, or the contractor, if one was awarded, could claim extra compensation for work outside the scope of the contract. And, of course, my successor could not be expected to handle lighting repairs as "self-help" simply because my troops and I were willing.
So (again), calling on what I learned in VN, I made a deal with the Facilities Engineer. We had three replacement bulbs on hand "off the records". When my troops changed a bulb, they would fill out a DA 2407 the next morning and it would be documented that a facilities engineers electrician changed the bulb, a new bulb would be "requisitioned" to replace the one from our "off the record" stock, and the manhours and parts would be dutifully recorded, so that the Work Statements that would be bid on accurately reflected what the contractor would typically have to do to support airfield lighting. Turns out that the post received a major mission change, and all that work was set aside and contracting out was dropped, but at least our data was "accurate".
So, we have a good sprinkling of vets here. I offer this as a topic that can be uplifting and fun. Heaven knows, the "news of the day" stuff is far from uplifting.
I thus ask all to belly up to the bar and share some of your "GI Ingenuity" war (and peace) stories. I know there are many, and we all deserve a break.
I identified with what the author was saying, as in Viet Nam, as well in later years, I found that one often had to devise "legitimate" (or seemingly so) ways to get the job done in spite of "The System".
One example was the Army's allocation of maintenance to Unit, Direct Support, General Support and Depot levels. Our Chinook unit was authorized to do Unit and Limited Direct Support Maintenance. The Direct Support Maintenance unit that was tasked to provide support beyond our needs was at the other end of the airfield and supported a variety of units on our base and four others. Their workload was significant. While a unit could somewhat manage the flying hours it placed on its aircraft to stagger out the timing of scheduled maintenance tasks and accomplish a modicum of maintenance control, the Direct Support Unit had no control over the scheduling of hours by the supported units. Thus if a unit mismanaged their flying hour distribution, they would turn the aircraft in to DS for them to handle major inspections and component changes - often several at a time.
Our unit did an amazing job of scheduling, and thus, we never turned aircraft in to DS. In fact, we had production control so fine tuned, we had the manpower to exceed our "Limited DS" authorization. However, we also knew that exceeding our Limited DS "off the books" would deny the Army the data to properly know the man hours and parts required to maintain the total fleet, yet we couldn't record doing maintenance we weren't authorized to do, and the DS unit didn't need the additional work.
So, since our Maint Officer and the DS unit CO were flight school buddies, they worked out a deal. We kept him appraised of the "extra" DS work we did, and dutifully filled our DA Form 2407s (Maintenance Work Request) for that work, showing his unit as having done the work. Thus, manhours and parts were dutifully reported to Aviation Systems Command, allowing them to keep the support requirements for Chinooks accurate and up to date. We did "above level" component repair this way as well. We kept our fleet flying without the uncertainty of when DS could do a job and get the ship or component back to us, the DS unit had a somewhat more manageable burden, and the database was accurate, except for the level at which the work was really done. However, that "inaccuracy" was of minor consequence, as it simply showed a higher demand for DS manhours, which would ultimately increase DS TOE staffing, if possible.
Fast forward nearly 20 years, and I am now an airfield commander at a post with civil service facility engineer support. The airfield lighting system would occasionally need bulbs replaced. Rather than bother the Facility Engineers for the on-call night electrician to drive 3 miles out to the airfield to do the work, I had soldiers qualified and willing to do it. Made much more sense. But then, the post came under review for contracting out facility engineer support, and in order to develop the statements of work to be placed in the request for bids, ALL facilities engineering work for a year had to be documented, or the contractor, if one was awarded, could claim extra compensation for work outside the scope of the contract. And, of course, my successor could not be expected to handle lighting repairs as "self-help" simply because my troops and I were willing.
So (again), calling on what I learned in VN, I made a deal with the Facilities Engineer. We had three replacement bulbs on hand "off the records". When my troops changed a bulb, they would fill out a DA 2407 the next morning and it would be documented that a facilities engineers electrician changed the bulb, a new bulb would be "requisitioned" to replace the one from our "off the record" stock, and the manhours and parts would be dutifully recorded, so that the Work Statements that would be bid on accurately reflected what the contractor would typically have to do to support airfield lighting. Turns out that the post received a major mission change, and all that work was set aside and contracting out was dropped, but at least our data was "accurate".
So, we have a good sprinkling of vets here. I offer this as a topic that can be uplifting and fun. Heaven knows, the "news of the day" stuff is far from uplifting.
I thus ask all to belly up to the bar and share some of your "GI Ingenuity" war (and peace) stories. I know there are many, and we all deserve a break.
